Friday, May 20, 2011

Proposal: And All The Boards Did Shrink

Times out 5-8 and is defeated. -coppro

Adminned at 22 May 2011 16:02:30 UTC

Through all the Dynastic Rules, replace the word Sun with the word Water. In the GNDT, each Farmer’s Sun value shall become their Water value. Replace “a Farmer may Harvest” with “a Farmer may draw from the river” in the rule “Resources”.

So a flat reproposal of Ely’s “water” idea, again, given that the voting has been a bit complicated both times. Do we want Sun, Wood and Juice, or Water, Wood and Juice?

Comments

Yoda:

05-20-2011 18:03:45 UTC

against

SingularByte:

05-20-2011 18:08:53 UTC

for

Bucky:

05-20-2011 19:25:50 UTC

imperial

Darknight:

05-20-2011 20:58:18 UTC

against

aguydude:

05-20-2011 22:25:55 UTC

against This change seems kind of pointless.  Also, it fails to replace Sun with Water in pending proposals, and .

Kevan:

05-20-2011 22:38:57 UTC

Sure, it’s just flavour, but it seems like it could take the game down a different route, which some players might want. A game where you have to collect water to plant and nourish your crops is going to be different from a game where you somehow stockpile and spend sunlight.

Unless I’m forgetting something, requiring all proposals to mess around with pending proposals is a potentially bad thing and not how we normally write them, as discussed in the previous version. (Did I miss your point when you said “Proposals like this should really be written edit other proposals in the queue.”, ais523?)

Florw:

05-20-2011 22:44:30 UTC

for

Ely:

05-21-2011 00:01:39 UTC

for And I just add that I’d like to see proposal referring to the ruleset and to past Proposals, rather than to potential future ones.
And it would also restrict the wording of future proposals…
I mean, what about me making a Core proposal about Sunset? “Sunset is the moment in wich the Water stops being visible from London.”
Now that would be funny.

Hix:

05-21-2011 02:07:59 UTC

against

aguydude:

05-21-2011 02:30:10 UTC

Kevan: My point is that it shouldn’t break currently pending proposals, not that it should mess with future proposals.  People who write proposals are somewhat responsible for dealing with the currently pending proposals, otherwise there is a risk of proposals constantly being corrected as they are broken by overlapping proposals.

Galtori:

05-21-2011 02:32:54 UTC

against

SingularByte:

05-21-2011 06:39:58 UTC

aguydude: Since all proposals are enacted or failed in order, by the time this proposal potentially passes, the pending proposals will have passed or failed so they’ll be affected by it the same as rules currently in the ruleset. The only pending proposals left will have been written after this one.

Josh:

05-21-2011 08:04:45 UTC

for

Winner:

05-22-2011 00:00:13 UTC

imperial

qwertyu63:

05-22-2011 11:28:08 UTC

imperial